Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-06-22
A LITTLE MIXED.
The Case Of Layman v. GiIlesPie Brought
To a Sudden Halt.

to a Sudden Halt.
The case of Sanford A. Layman v. Justics
Gillespie was to have comeup before Justics
W. H. Davis yesterday afternoon at .
o'clock, but the issuance ofa rule from the
Office of the Clerk Of the Circuit Court
caused the hearing to be again post
poned until next Monday. This rule
was issued by Judge Boyd upon
facts contained in an affidavit filed
by W. p. Hubbard, counsel for Justice Gill
lespie, in the Office of the Clerk Of the Cir
cult Court, Monday. The rule is return
able at the September term, and cites
Justice Davis to show cause why writ Of
prohibition should not issue against him.
The substance of Justice Gillespie's affida-
Wit is given below:
The affidavit upon which the rule was
issued sets forth that on May 80, 1887, an
action was brought before the said Giles
pie, by NJ c. Crawford, Collector Of the
city OF Wheeling, against Sanford A. lay
man. On June 4th defendant confessed
Judgment in favor of the plaintiff for so
cents and costs, the latter being taxed nj
$l95. The defendant paid the judgment
of 81. 45, and thereby satisfied the same.
On June &, w. II. Davis, Justice Of the
Peace for Union district, issued sum-
mons against the said Gillespie, citing
him to appear to answer the complaint Of
Sanford A. Layman in civil action for
the recovery OF money for wrong
done. The said summons reciting
that the plaintiff would demand
judgment for damages, being $3.50, exclu-
siye of interest and costs. A declaration
was also filed by the said Iayman, in
which the damages were claimed for a
wrong done the plaintiff in collecting from
him fees, the defendant being q Justice,
not authorized by law. 1t is claimed by
Iayman, the affidavit proceeds, that the
said NJ. G. Crawford could not maintain an
action for taxes due from Layman and was
not entitled 10 recover in the action
brought before Gillespie He does not
claim that the costs or fine in the said ac-
ton were improperly taxed, or that any
fee bill issued therefor, or that any i'm
proper means were used 10 obtain payment
OF such costs, his whole claim being that
the Judgment rendered was erroneous.
The affidavit continues.
"The said Davis stated TO me after the
action against Inc was brought before him,
that there was no complaint respecting
the amount Of the costs charged by me, and
that the amount 10 charged was not exces-
sive, but was for q less amount than that
permitted by law. The said Davis further
stated to me in the same conversation that
Crawford had no right 10 maintain q suit
for taxes, and that had no right to render
judgement in his favor therefore. The
said Davis has thus decided the action
brought by Layman against me before the
trial of the same, and before hearing any
of the evidence therein, and ! therefore
respectfully insist that he is disabled from
taking cognizance of the said action and
from proceeding therein.
"The said action against me is based not
upon any claims with respect 10 the costs
taxed by me in the action against Layman,
but solely upon the claim that the judg-
ment rendered by me against Iayman, and
which was satisfied by him rs aforesaid,
was erroneous. The action brought by
Layman against me and now pending be-
fore said Davis, is, therefore, nothing more
than an attempt upon the part Of the said
Justice to exercise appellate jurisdiction
with respect TO the judgment rendered by
me against said Layman, and 10 reverse the
last mentioned judgment"
at is ali usurpation and abuse of power
upon the part Of the said Davis, to enter
tain jurisdiction Of said action against me.
and the said Davis has not jurisdiction Of
said action, and is exceeding his legitimate
powers"
It was stated yesterday That the attor-
neys, c. 3. Smith for Justice Davis, and Mr..
Hubbard for Justice Gillespie, would argue
the matter before Judge Boyd next Mon
day morning.